Telehealth has the potential to change the way we approach patient care. From virtual consenting to reducing carbon emissions, costs, and waiting times, it is a powerful tool in our clinical armamentarium. There is mounting evidence that remote diagnostic evaluation and decision-making have reached an acceptable level of accuracy and can safely be adopted in orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, patients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction with virtual appointments are comparable to in-person consultations. Challenges to the widespread use of telehealth should, however, be acknowledged and include the cost of installation, training, maintenance, and accessibility. It is also vital that clinicians are conscious of the medicolegal and ethical considerations surrounding the medium and adhere strictly to the relevant data protection legislation and storage framework. It remains to be seen how organizations harness the full spectrum of the technology to facilitate effective patient care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):843–849.

There has been a marked increase in the number of hip arthroscopies performed over the past 16 years, primarily in the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Insights into the pathoanatomy of FAI, and high-level evidence supporting the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopy in the management of FAI, have fuelled this trend. Arthroscopic management of labral tears with repair may have superior results compared with debridement, and there is now emerging evidence to support reconstructive options where repair is not possible. In situations where an interportal capsulotomy is performed to facilitate access, data now support closure of the capsule in selective cases where there is an increased risk of postoperative instability. Preoperative planning is an integral component of bony corrective surgery in FAI, and this has evolved to include computer-planned resection. However, the benefit of this remains controversial. Hip instability is now widely accepted, and diagnostic criteria and treatment are becoming increasingly refined. Instability can also be present with FAI or develop as a result of FAI treatment. In this annotation, we outline major current controversies relating to decision-making in hip arthroscopy for FAI.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):532–540.

The Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial was a pragmatic equivalence randomized controlled trial conducted at 24 hospitals in the United Kingdom that recruited 620 patients aged more than 60 years with an unstable ankle fracture. The trial compared the usual care pathway of early management with open reduction and internal fixation with initially attempting non-surgical management using close contact casting (CCC). CCC is a minimally padded cast applied by an orthopaedic surgeon after closed reduction in the operating theatre. The intervention groups had equivalent functional outcomes at six months and longer-term follow-up. However, potential barriers to using CCC as an initial form of treatment for these patients have been identified. In this report, the results of the AIM trial are summarized and the key issues are discussed in order to further the debate about the role of CCC. Evidence from the AIM trial supports surgeons considering conservative management by CCC as a treatment option for these patients. The longer-term follow-up emphasized that patients treated with CCC need careful monitoring in the weeks after its application to monitor maintenance of reduction.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1472–1475.

National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS < 20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores.

Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.